RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Webb, Andy]

Oh, and it's only Outlook 2003 that can use large PST files.  The
Exchange MAPI drivers (exmerge, etc) are still limited to small PST
files.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

The default is 20GB if I remember correctly.  But can be changed via
registry key if I also remember correctly.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevinm [NY]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 backups

32TB theoretically.

No .. I haven't hit that limit yet at home.

--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronald Mazzotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.


[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
>
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
>
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups
> and restores.
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.ha

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Chris Scharff]

The first may be true, don't believe the second is. But it's Monday and
I was up late helping my son with his science project so...

-Original Message-
From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:17 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

The default is 20GB if I remember correctly.  But can be changed via
registry key if I also remember correctly.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevinm [NY]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 backups

32TB theoretically.

No .. I haven't hit that limit yet at home.

--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronald Mazzotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.


[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
>
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
>
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups
> and restores.
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawai

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Webb, Andy]

The default is 20GB if I remember correctly.  But can be changed via
registry key if I also remember correctly.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevinm [NY]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 backups

32TB theoretically.

No .. I haven't hit that limit yet at home.

--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronald Mazzotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.


[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
>
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
>
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups
> and restores.
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
>

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Kevinm [NY]]

Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 backups

32TB theoretically.

No .. I haven't hit that limit yet at home.

--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronald Mazzotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.


[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
>
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
>
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups
> and restores.
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it
> in a PST.
>
> Erick
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursda

Re: Exchange 2003 backups

[Martin Tuip [MVP]]

32TB theoretically.

No .. I haven't hit that limit yet at home.

--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronald Mazzotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.


[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
>
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
>
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups
> and restores.
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it
> in a PST.
>
> Erick
>
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> >
> >
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> >
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
>

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[David, Andy]

That's why E2003 handles them so well.
 

-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Err, Outlook 2003 has the ability to handle PST files in excess of 2Gb.
Exchange itself doesn't know or care about PST files.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronald Mazzotta
Sent: 09 January 2004 15:44
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Atkinson, Miles]

Err, Outlook 2003 has the ability to handle PST files in excess of 2Gb.
Exchange itself doesn't know or care about PST files.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronald
Mazzotta
Sent: 09 January 2004 15:44
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[David, Andy]

You should be able to backup a pst after (30) minutes of inactivity.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222328

 

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on this
list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like any other
tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither inherently good
nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for some
situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must understand
their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data in
the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well before the
2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have with
PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file server[1], then
runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could if
they were in the store.

 
[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6 months
because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not something
I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be forced to managed
their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to dispose of the 
> mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of storage space 
> on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is the effect those large 
> information stores can have on backups and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information 
> Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
> ? yes, they
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exch

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ronald Mazzotta]

Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.

Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky & Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
Roseland NJ, 07068

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.

 
[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
> ? yes, they
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> 

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Chris Scharff]

I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.

Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.

 
[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
> ? yes, they
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > >

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ken Cornetet]

Matthew, you will find that the PST=BAD has become religious dogma on
this list. In reality, PST files are just another tool, and much like
any other tool (inclined plane, fire, chainsaw, etc) they are neither
inherently good nor evil.

On the other hand, while PST files can serve a useful purpose, they are
definitely in the "chainsaw" category of tools. They can be handy for
some situations, but they need respect, and users of PST files must
understand their limitations.

PST files cannot hit the 2GB file size. If they do, you will corrupt the
PST, and will need a special recovery tool to get back SOME of the data
in the PST. I have heard rumors that the corruption can occur well
before the 2GB mark, so we tell any of our PST users to stay below 1GB.

PST files cannot be backed up while they are open. Any users we have
with PST files run a startup script that zips their PST to a file
server[1], then runs Outlook after the zip is done.

You, as the email admin, have no visibility into these PST files. You
cannot, for example, use exmerge to delete infected emails as you could
if they were in the store.

 
[1] The argument could be made here to remove disk space from the file
server, add it to the exchange server, and don't use the PST file. This
certainly should be done if possible, but isn't always practical.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups


yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago
> ? yes, they
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003. It is a 
> > > > single server setup.
> > > > 
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Steve Molkentin]

Ed,

Thanks - I had forgotten the correct term, and in its absence decided to
coin one of my own... And yes, the content filters kicked in on me.  ;)

themolk.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:30 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> The correct term is vendor whore.  I am not a slut.
> 
> Ed "Waiting for the Content Filters to Kick In" Crowley 
> MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the 
> world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Steve Molkentin
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:56 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users 
> forget them (rendering them useless).
> 
> PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files 
> feature), and so can be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.
> 
> I think that we almost have an FAQ for why PST=bad from this 
> list, don't we?
> 
> Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously.  ;)
> 
> themolk. 
> 
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years I'd 
> > design an Exchange setup that gave them the space they 
> needed to store 
> > this stuff.
> >  
> > PSTs are unreliable
> > PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and 
> backup tape 
> > space as they break SIS) I think this is all covered in the 
> FAQs, if 
> > not, certainly the archives.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> > yes, they do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > >
> > >
> > > PST = Bad.
> > >
> > > themolk. 
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > > It is a single server setup.
> > > >
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > > The stores
> > > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> > every week I
> > > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > >
> > > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade,
> > I thought
> > > > I would revue the situation.
> > > >
> > > > Some background info...
> > > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue
> > to rise to
> > > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> > increased
> > > > to 100mb.
> > > >
> > > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use
> > pst files
> > > > on the server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup 
> policy for this 
> > > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > > >
> > > > Any advice ?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Matthew Joyce
> > > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.cci

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

The correct term is vendor whore.  I am not a slut.

Ed "Waiting for the Content Filters to Kick In" Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Molkentin
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users forget them
(rendering them useless).

PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files feature), and so can
be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.

I think that we almost have an FAQ for why PST=bad from this list, don't we?

Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously.  ;)

themolk. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years I'd 
> design an Exchange setup that gave them the space they needed to store 
> this stuff.
>  
> PSTs are unreliable
> PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and backup tape 
> space as they break SIS) I think this is all covered in the FAQs, if 
> not, certainly the archives.
> 
> 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
> Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> 
> How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> yes, they do need to access these.
> 
> What do other organisations do ?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > Molkentin
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> >
> >
> > PST = Bad.
> >
> > themolk. 
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > It is a single server setup.
> > >
> > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > The stores
> > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> every week I
> > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > >
> > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade,
> I thought
> > > I would revue the situation.
> > >
> > > Some background info...
> > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue
> to rise to
> > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> increased
> > > to 100mb.
> > >
> > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use
> pst files
> > > on the server.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for this 
> > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > >
> > > Any advice ?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew Joyce
> > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia
> > > Corp.
> > > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > > 475 Park Avenue South
> > > New York, NY 10016
> > >
> > > Please include the email address which you have been
> contacted with.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Steve Molkentin]

I agree ( I was in the middle of drafting a response to this one when
Chris' advice arrived). I think that the easiest solution is good
deleted retention limits, and lots of disk space. The only downside is
the cost, and whatever proposal you then have to write for your new
backup system to cover your new big disks on your exchange box!!

themolk.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:06 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> My retention policies and mailbox size limits are based on 
> what I feel are best for my organization (based on a lot of 
> discussions and my mail nazi instincts). Ask around, get 
> input and feedback from users and management and then make a 
> proposal on storage and retention along with projected growth 
> and cost. If management thinks it is too expensive, get their 
> feedback and submit again. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 
> Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:21 PM Posted To: swynk
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> yes, this is my concern.
> The main part of my question was what to backup and how often.
> ...and retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.
> 
> I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe 
> changed 6 months because of store bloating.
> 
> Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.
> 
> 
> I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes 
> (not something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then 
> staff would be forced to managed their mail better.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> > 
> > Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to 
> dispose of the 
> > mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> > 
> > Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of 
> storage space 
> > on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is the effect 
> those large 
> > information stores can have on backups and restores.
> > 
> > -Ben-
> > Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information 
> > Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
> >  
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Erick Thompson
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have 
> > access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> > permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> > in a PST.
> > 
> > Erick
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
> > Matthew Joyce
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they 
> considered bad ?
> > > 
> > > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago 
> > ? yes, they 
> > > do need to access these.
> > > 
> > > What do other organisations do ?
> > > 
> > > Matt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
> > > > Molkentin
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > PST = Bad.
> > > > 
> > > > themolk.
> > > > 
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi,
&g

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Steve Molkentin]

Chris,

Granted... They aren't the most secure solution in that regard... I
guess it is more that they are prone or corruption, and have a finite
limit which users then don't find out about until they go OVER that
limit (they they are stuffed!).  ;)

themolk.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:03 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> Takes about 6 seconds to strip a password from a PST file 
> which renders them laughably insecure rather than useless. ;)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Molkentin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted 
> At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:56 PM Posted To: swynk
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users 
> forget them (rendering them useless).
> 
> PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files 
> feature), and so can be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.
> 
> I think that we almost have an FAQ for why PST=bad from this 
> list, don't we?
> 
> Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously.  ;)
> 
> themolk. 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years I'd 
> > design an Exchange setup that gave them the space they 
> needed to store 
> > this stuff.
> >  
> > PSTs are unreliable
> > PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and 
> backup tape 
> > space as they break SIS) I think this is all covered in the 
> FAQs, if 
> > not, certainly the archives.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> > yes, they do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > >
> > >
> > > PST = Bad.
> > >
> > > themolk. 
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > > It is a single server setup.
> > > >
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > > The stores
> > > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> > every week I
> > > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > >
> > > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade,
> > I thought
> > > > I would revue the situation.
> > > >
> > > > Some background info...
> > > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue
> > to rise to
> > > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> > increased
> > > > to 100mb.
> > > >
> > > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use
> > pst files
> > > > on the server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup 
> policy for this 
> > > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > > >
> > > > Any advice ?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Matthew Joyce
> > > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> &

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Chris Scharff]

My retention policies and mailbox size limits are based on what I feel
are best for my organization (based on a lot of discussions and my mail
nazi instincts). Ask around, get input and feedback from users and
management and then make a proposal on storage and retention along with
projected growth and cost. If management thinks it is too expensive, get
their feedback and submit again. 

-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:21 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often.
...and retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to 
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of 
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have 
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago 
> ? yes, they 
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > > It is a single server setup.
> > > > 
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > > The stores
> > > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> > every week I
> > > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > > 
> > > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > > > thought I would revue the situation.
> > > > 
> > > > Some background info...
> > > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue 
> to rise to
> 
> > > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> > > > increased to 100mb.
> > > > 
> > > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they 
> use pst files
> 
> > > > on the server.
> > > > 
> &g

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Chris Scharff]

Takes about 6 seconds to strip a password from a PST file which renders
them laughably insecure rather than useless. ;)

-Original Message-
From: Steve Molkentin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:56 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users forget them
(rendering them useless).

PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files feature), and so
can be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.

I think that we almost have an FAQ for why PST=bad from this list, don't
we?

Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously.  ;)

themolk. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years 
> I'd design an Exchange setup that gave them the space they 
> needed to store this stuff.
>  
> PSTs are unreliable
> PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and 
> backup tape space as they break SIS) I think this is all 
> covered in the FAQs, if not, certainly the archives.
> 
> 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
> Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> 
> How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> yes, they do need to access these.
> 
> What do other organisations do ?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > Molkentin
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> >
> >
> > PST = Bad.
> >
> > themolk. 
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > It is a single server setup.
> > >
> > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > The stores
> > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and 
> every week I 
> > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > >
> > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, 
> I thought 
> > > I would revue the situation.
> > >
> > > Some background info...
> > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue 
> to rise to 
> > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> increased 
> > > to 100mb.
> > >
> > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use 
> pst files 
> > > on the server.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for this 
> > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > >
> > > Any advice ?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew Joyce
> > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia 
> > > Corp.
> > > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > > 475 Park Avenue South
> > > New York, NY 10016
> > >
> > > Please include the email address which you have been 
> contacted with.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
>

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Chris Scharff]

Several of my customers who have users with lots of data (law firms and
financial services companies primarily, who also often have regulatory
reasons for keeping data as well) use products like Enterprise Vault
from KVS for long term archival storage. The cost of discovery against a
network share and wherever else they might be stashed makes an
investment in something like KVS seem like a bargain.

-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:35 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?

How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.

What do other organisations do ?

Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Steve Molkentin
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> PST = Bad.
> 
> themolk.  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > It is a single server setup.
> > 
> > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT. 
> The stores 
> > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and every week I 
> > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > 
> > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > thought I would revue the situation.
> > 
> > Some background info...
> > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to
> > rise to 250 over the next few years.
> > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> > increased to 100mb.
> > 
> > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst
> > files on the server.
> > 
> > 
> > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for
> > this setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > 
> > Any advice ?
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > 
> > Matthew Joyce
> > Children's Cancer Institute Australia
> > http://www.ccia.org.au
> > 
> > --


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Matthew Joyce]

yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often.
...and retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.

I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.

Import all those PSTs is just not something I'm prepared to do.


I can see, that had I not used PSTs and used bigger mailboxes (not
something I could have done, predecessor, etc) then staff would be
forced to managed their mail better.



Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Really big hard drives is how we do it.
> 
> Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to 
> dispose of the mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.
> 
> Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of 
> storage space on our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is 
> the effect those large information stores can have on backups 
> and restores.
> 
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Erick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have 
> access to email from years ago, but all users (with correct 
> permissions) have access, instead of only the user who has it 
> in a PST.
> 
> Erick
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
> Matthew Joyce
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> > 
> > How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago 
> ? yes, they 
> > do need to access these.
> > 
> > What do other organisations do ?
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
> > > Molkentin
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PST = Bad.
> > > 
> > > themolk.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > > It is a single server setup.
> > > > 
> > > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > > The stores
> > > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> > every week I
> > > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > > 
> > > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > > > thought I would revue the situation.
> > > > 
> > > > Some background info...
> > > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue 
> to rise to
> 
> > > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> > > > increased to 100mb.
> > > > 
> > > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they 
> use pst files
> 
> > > > on the server.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup 
> policy for this
> > > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > > > 
> > > > Any advice ?
> > > > 
> > > > thanks
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Matthew Joyce
> > > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> ___

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Steve Molkentin]

PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users forget them
(rendering them useless).

PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files feature), and so
can be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.

I think that we almost have an FAQ for why PST=bad from this list, don't
we?

Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously.  ;)

themolk. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years 
> I'd design an Exchange setup that gave them the space they 
> needed to store this stuff.
>  
> PSTs are unreliable
> PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and 
> backup tape space as they break SIS) I think this is all 
> covered in the FAQs, if not, certainly the archives.
> 
> 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
> Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> 
> How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> yes, they do need to access these.
> 
> What do other organisations do ?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > Molkentin
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> >
> >
> > PST = Bad.
> >
> > themolk. 
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > It is a single server setup.
> > >
> > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> > The stores
> > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and 
> every week I 
> > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > >
> > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, 
> I thought 
> > > I would revue the situation.
> > >
> > > Some background info...
> > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue 
> to rise to 
> > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> increased 
> > > to 100mb.
> > >
> > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use 
> pst files 
> > > on the server.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for this 
> > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > >
> > > Any advice ?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew Joyce
> > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia 
> > > Corp.
> > > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > > 475 Park Avenue South
> > > New York, NY 10016
> > >
> > > Please include the email address which you have been 
> contacted with.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To unsubscribe via postal mail, pleas

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ben Schorr]

Unreliable and inefficient when they get large.  Difficult to manage.

-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?

How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.

What do other organisations do ?

Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> Molkentin
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> PST = Bad.
> 
> themolk.  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > It is a single server setup.
> > 
> > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT. 
> The stores
> > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and every week I 
> > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > 
> > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I thought 
> > I would revue the situation.
> > 
> > Some background info...
> > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to rise to 
> > 250 over the next few years.
> > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been increased 
> > to 100mb.
> > 
> > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst files 
> > on the server.
> > 
> > 
> > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for this 
> > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > 
> > Any advice ?
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > 
> > Matthew Joyce
> > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia 
> > Corp.
> > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > 475 Park Avenue South
> > New York, NY 10016
> > 
> > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Ben Schorr]

Really big hard drives is how we do it.

Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to dispose of the
mail they don't need.  Occasionally they do.

Of course, we have the luxury of having an abundance of storage space on
our Exchange servers the bigger challenge is the effect those large
information stores can have on backups and restores.

-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erick Thompson
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups

I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have access to
email from years ago, but all users (with correct permissions) have
access, instead of only the user who has it in a PST.

Erick

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> 
> How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> yes, they do need to access these.
> 
> What do other organisations do ?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve 
> > Molkentin
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > PST = Bad.
> > 
> > themolk.  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > It is a single server setup.
> > > 
> > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT. 
> > The stores
> > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and
> every week I
> > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > 
> > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I 
> > > thought I would revue the situation.
> > > 
> > > Some background info...
> > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to rise to

> > > 250 over the next few years.
> > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> > > increased to 100mb.
> > > 
> > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst files

> > > on the server.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for this 
> > > setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > > 
> > > Any advice ?
> > > 
> > > thanks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Matthew Joyce
> > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia http://www.ccia.org.au
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia
> > > Corp.
> > > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > > 475 Park Avenue South
> > > New York, NY 10016
> > > 
> > > Please include the email address which you have been
> contacted with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia Corp.
> Attn: Discussion List Management
> 475 Park Avenue South
> New York, NY 10016
> 
> Ple

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Robert Moir]

If my users needed to access mail that was older than 2 years I'd design an Exchange 
setup that gave them the space they needed to store this stuff.
 
PSTs are unreliable
PSTs are expensive (e.g. cost of supporting them, disk and backup tape space as they 
break SIS)
I think this is all covered in the FAQs, if not, certainly the archives.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups



This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?

How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.

What do other organisations do ?

Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Steve Molkentin
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
>
>
> PST = Bad.
>
> themolk. 
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > It is a single server setup.
> >
> > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> The stores
> > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and every week I
> > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> >
> > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > thought I would revue the situation.
> >
> > Some background info...
> > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to
> > rise to 250 over the next few years.
> > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been
> > increased to 100mb.
> >
> > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst
> > files on the server.
> >
> >
> > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for
> > this setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> >
> > Any advice ?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> > Matthew Joyce
> > Children's Cancer Institute Australia
> > http://www.ccia.org.au
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia
> > Corp.
> > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > 475 Park Avenue South
> > New York, NY 10016
> >
> > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
> >
> >
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english 
<http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=<=english> 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Erick Thompson]

I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have access to email from 
years ago, but all users (with correct permissions) have access, instead of only the 
user who has it in a PST.

Erick

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
> 
> How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
> yes, they do need to access these.
> 
> What do other organisations do ?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Steve Molkentin
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > PST = Bad.
> > 
> > themolk.  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > > It is a single server setup.
> > > 
> > > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT. 
> > The stores 
> > > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and 
> every week I 
> > > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > > 
> > > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > > thought I would revue the situation.
> > > 
> > > Some background info...
> > > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to
> > > rise to 250 over the next few years.
> > > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> > > increased to 100mb.
> > > 
> > > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst
> > > files on the server.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for
> > > this setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > > 
> > > Any advice ?
> > > 
> > > thanks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Matthew Joyce
> > > Children's Cancer Institute Australia
> > > http://www.ccia.org.au
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia 
> > > Corp.
> > > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > > 475 Park Avenue South
> > > New York, NY 10016
> > > 
> > > Please include the email address which you have been 
> contacted with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: 
> Jupitermedia Corp.
> Attn: Discussion List Management
> 475 Park Avenue South
> New York, NY 10016
> 
> Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Matthew Joyce]

This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?

How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.

What do other organisations do ?

Matt


--


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Steve Molkentin
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> PST = Bad.
> 
> themolk.  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> > It is a single server setup.
> > 
> > I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT. 
> The stores 
> > and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily and every week I 
> > would stop the services and do a full backup.
> > 
> > Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I
> > thought I would revue the situation.
> > 
> > Some background info...
> > The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> > There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to
> > rise to 250 over the next few years.
> > Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> > increased to 100mb.
> > 
> > Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst
> > files on the server.
> > 
> > 
> > At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for
> > this setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> > 
> > Any advice ?
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > 
> > Matthew Joyce
> > Children's Cancer Institute Australia
> > http://www.ccia.org.au
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia 
> > Corp.
> > Attn: Discussion List Management
> > 475 Park Avenue South
> > New York, NY 10016
> > 
> > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 backups

[Steve Molkentin]

PST = Bad.

themolk.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
> It is a single server setup.
> 
> I used to use BackupExec+Exchange agent to backup to a DLT.
> The stores and the individual mailboxes were backed up daily 
> and every week I would stop the services and do a full backup.
> 
> Before I rush out an pay Veritas for the license upgrade, I 
> thought I would revue the situation.
> 
> Some background info...
> The server has 100gb of raid5 diskspace.
> There is about 125 mailboxes, I expect this to continue to 
> rise to 250 over the next few years.
> Mailbox sizes used to be about 70mb on 5.5, this has been 
> increased to 100mb.
> 
> Some staff do need access to archived mail, and they use pst 
> files on the server.
> 
> 
> At the moment I do not have a well defined backup policy for 
> this setup, I am using ntbackup for stores and state nightly.
> 
> Any advice ?
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> Matthew Joyce
> Children's Cancer Institute Australia
> http://www.ccia.org.au
> 
> --
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
> Jupitermedia Corp.
> Attn: Discussion List Management
> 475 Park Avenue South
> New York, NY 10016
> 
> Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
> 
> 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 can't send to Groupwise

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

Do an SMTP protocol trace and see if that gives you any clues. 

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 can't send to Groupwise

We have a client (JI) that has recently changed to a different software
vendor. This vendor uses Groupwise on their end for email. JI can receive
any email that comes from the vendor but can not send to them... mail just
sits in the Queue and retries. JI is running Exchange 2003 on a Win2000 box
(SP4). We can route some of JI's users through our Exchange 2003 box and the
mail goes without any problems. We have spent hours verifying that the
Routers at JI's site and at our site have the same ports open... (JI's
Exchange doesn't even work if on the outside of the Firewall). The two
Exchange boxes are set up the same. We're not familiar with Groupwise and
haven't gotten alot of help from the Vendor's IT dept thus far.

Any ideas? BTW, all other mail goes without any problems. It's just this one
site.

Thanks,
Robert

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

Well sometimes one needs to ExMerge a bunch of mailboxes...


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Nonetheless, this is a terrible idea.  An admin should grant himself
permissions to read someone's mailbox only when there is a need to do so
and
should remove the permission when the need is over.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Can't someone just go and look this up on Google? You can explicitly
override the denies to domain admins if you go to the properties of an
information store, click on the security tab and explicitly select Allow
next to those Denies. Then wait 15 minutes or restart the information
store
service.


-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied this ability.

You can use an account that is not in those groups to get access... just
give it 'send as' and 'receive as' rights on the database or mailbox.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is
in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however
open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had
access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[montano]

Thanks all got it ...



-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


Nonetheless, this is a terrible idea.  An admin should grant himself
permissions to read someone's mailbox only when there is a need to do so and
should remove the permission when the need is over.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Can't someone just go and look this up on Google? You can explicitly
override the denies to domain admins if you go to the properties of an
information store, click on the security tab and explicitly select Allow
next to those Denies. Then wait 15 minutes or restart the information store
service.


-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied this ability.

You can use an account that is not in those groups to get access... just
give it 'send as' and 'receive as' rights on the database or mailbox.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

Nonetheless, this is a terrible idea.  An admin should grant himself
permissions to read someone's mailbox only when there is a need to do so and
should remove the permission when the need is over.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Can't someone just go and look this up on Google? You can explicitly
override the denies to domain admins if you go to the properties of an
information store, click on the security tab and explicitly select Allow
next to those Denies. Then wait 15 minutes or restart the information store
service.


-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied this ability.

You can use an account that is not in those groups to get access... just
give it 'send as' and 'receive as' rights on the database or mailbox.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had
access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

Can't someone just go and look this up on Google? You can explicitly
override the denies to domain admins if you go to the properties of an
information store, click on the security tab and explicitly select Allow
next to those Denies. Then wait 15 minutes or restart the information
store service.


-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied this ability.

You can use an account that is not in those groups to get access... just
give it 'send as' and 'receive as' rights on the database or mailbox.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is
in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however
open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had
access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[Edgington, Jeff]

hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied this ability.

You can use an account that is not in those groups to get access... just
give it 'send as' and 'receive as' rights on the database or mailbox.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is
in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however
open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had
access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[montano]

Thanks I did see a KB article.

When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced then the mailbox rights button.  The enterprise admin group is in
their with full rights.  I am part of that group.  I can not however open
the mailbox via OWA or outlook.



-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions


You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those mailboxes. There are KB
articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or on the information store that contains those mailboxes.
There are KB articles about this.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions

Hi All,

 I am in the process of migrating to exchange 2003 from Exchange 5.5.  I
have setup the 2003 server, have ADC running and have moved 3 of the 200
mailboxes so far to the new server.

In exchange 5.5 my account was sent as a permissions admin and I had
access
to open anyone's mailbox from with outlook (file ->open->other users
folder)

The mailboxes on the 2003 server will not open for me or if I use the
exchange service account

I need to have access to all mailboxes.  What is the best way?

thanks

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 stopped working on Small Business Server

[David Stafford]

You may also want to check that the IP addressing is setup correctly on the
LAN side of the router. If you had Public IP addresses before and now you
went to a firewall you will now have different IP addresses behind the
firewall (Prob a 192.168.0.X configuration)



-Original Message-
From: Kevin Beron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 stopped working on Small Business Server


Any idea what would cause email to stop working.  You are not even able to
send internal messages.  Did something in DNS get messed up.  I did a trial
install of SBS at home and was able to get exchange working right out of the
box.  I did not install the one that is not working but is was working until
they connected a firewall/router.  I have tried to take the firewall/router
out but still does not work.  If someone thinks they can help me I will
gladly try and fill in more details for them.

Kevin Beron
Firstlogic, Inc.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 stopped working on Small Business Server

[Bowles, John (OIG/OMP)]

I'm assuming you've checked the services for E2k on this box correct?

_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Beron
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 stopped working on Small Business Server


Any idea what would cause email to stop working.  You are not even able to
send internal messages.  Did something in DNS get messed up.  I did a
trial install of SBS at home and was able to get exchange working right
out of the box.  I did not install the one that is not working but is was
working until they connected a firewall/router.  I have tried to take the
firewall/router out but still does not work.  If someone thinks they can
help me I will gladly try and fill in more details for them.

Kevin Beron
Firstlogic, Inc.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 name change

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

I should think that if you can find a loaner server, that a swing server
method would be the easiest and least risky.  Install the new server, move
all mailboxes and folders to the new server, remove the old one, reinstall
it, and move everything back.  You don't need an extended outage to do this;
much you can do during business hours.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Mushrush
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 name change


We are working on an exchange 2003 server that was named improperly.  Do we
need to uninstall and reinstall or can we just rename and keep all the
public folders, etc?

Thanks,

Marty :)


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation

[Roger Seielstad]

I assume you have a Select Agreement with Microsoft and are installing it
from that media? In those cases, WPA is disabled and isn't required.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation
> 
> 
> 
>  
>   I've just bought Exchange 2003 and CALs for the office.  We 
> are still
> running  Exchage 5.5 SP4 [1], and we have eagerly started 
> installing OL2003
> to use all the cool new features.  
>  
>   My question is about product activation for Outlook 2003.  
> We aren't asked
> to activate this product when installed, and when I clcik 
> "Help.. Activate
> Product.."  I get a prodcut is already activated.  This 
> confuses me, and
> gives me a nagging concern.
>  
>   Is this product ever going to expire or require activation? 
> I'd really
> like to know before it happens to some laptop user 2500 miles 
> away on a
> weekend business trip.  
>  
>   This also brings up the question of if product activation 
> is so important,
> why doesn't this product include it?  But maybe it's better 
> not to think too
> deeply about MS's motives.
>  
>  
>  Jim Helfer
>  WTW Architects
> Pittsburgh PA
>  
>  
>  
> [1] Which by the way I beleive wouldn't be running half as 
> great as it is
> without the skills I have gleaned from this mailing list and 
> it's members.
> Thanks guys.  If you're all unprofessional unethical MS-owned 
> vendor whores,
> then I think we need more unprofessional, unethical, MS-woned 
> vendor whores
> !  Thanks Guys!
>  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 name change

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

Back up the information stores with Exchange-aware backup. Un-install
Exchange, take the server out of the domain, rename the server, join the
domain with new server name, make sure that DNS gets updated (if WINS is
also used, make sure WINS gets updated too), install Exchange.

Make sure that the Exchange organization name and administrative group
name are EXACTLY the same as in the previous installation.

Make sure that the information store objects in Exchange have EXACTLY
the same name as in previous installation and file paths for transaction
logs and information store DBs are EXACTLY the same.

Restore the information stores from tape.

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Marty Mushrush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 name change

We would like to keep as much as possible.

Thanks,
Marty :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 name change


Are you only interested in keeping the public folders?

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion

-Original Message-
From: Marty Mushrush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 name change


We are working on an exchange 2003 server that was named improperly.  Do
we
need to uninstall and reinstall or can we just rename and keep all the
public folders, etc?

Thanks,

Marty :)


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 name change

[Marty Mushrush]

We would like to keep as much as possible.

Thanks,
Marty :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 name change


Are you only interested in keeping the public folders?

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion

-Original Message-
From: Marty Mushrush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 name change


We are working on an exchange 2003 server that was named improperly.  Do
we
need to uninstall and reinstall or can we just rename and keep all the
public folders, etc?

Thanks,

Marty :)


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 name change

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

Are you only interested in keeping the public folders?

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion

-Original Message-
From: Marty Mushrush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 name change


We are working on an exchange 2003 server that was named improperly.  Do
we
need to uninstall and reinstall or can we just rename and keep all the
public folders, etc?

Thanks,

Marty :)


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation

[Jim Helfer]

 
 Ah, of course!  It's a Volume license purchase.  I've done this before, I'm
not sure why I didn't make the connection. 

  Thank you all, and Merry Christmas

 Jim Helfer
 
 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 11:57 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation
> 
> You either got the software under a microsoft select 
> agreement or the Volume Licensing Edition.  Neither version 
> requires a product activation.  
> 
> Eric Fretz
> 
> L-3 Communications
> ComCept Division
> 2800 Discovery Blvd.
> Rockwall, TX 75032
> tel:   972.772.7501
> fax:  972.772.7510
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation
> 
> 
> 
>  
>   I've just bought Exchange 2003 and CALs for the office.  We 
> are still
> running  Exchage 5.5 SP4 [1], and we have eagerly started 
> installing OL2003
> to use all the cool new features.  
>  
>   My question is about product activation for Outlook 2003.  
> We aren't asked
> to activate this product when installed, and when I clcik 
> "Help.. Activate
> Product.."  I get a prodcut is already activated.  This 
> confuses me, and
> gives me a nagging concern.
>  
>   Is this product ever going to expire or require activation? 
> I'd really
> like to know before it happens to some laptop user 2500 miles 
> away on a
> weekend business trip.  
>  
>   This also brings up the question of if product activation 
> is so important,
> why doesn't this product include it?  But maybe it's better 
> not to think too
> deeply about MS's motives.
>  
>  
>  Jim Helfer
>  WTW Architects
> Pittsburgh PA
>  
>  
>  
> [1] Which by the way I beleive wouldn't be running half as 
> great as it is
> without the skills I have gleaned from this mailing list and 
> it's members.
> Thanks guys.  If you're all unprofessional unethical MS-owned 
> vendor whores,
> then I think we need more unprofessional, unethical, MS-woned 
> vendor whores
> !  Thanks Guys!
>  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation

[Eric Fretz]

You either got the software under a microsoft select agreement or the Volume
Licensing Edition.  Neither version requires a product activation.  

Eric Fretz

L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel:   972.772.7501
fax:  972.772.7510



-Original Message-
From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: FW: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation



 
  I've just bought Exchange 2003 and CALs for the office.  We are still
running  Exchage 5.5 SP4 [1], and we have eagerly started installing OL2003
to use all the cool new features.  
 
  My question is about product activation for Outlook 2003.  We aren't asked
to activate this product when installed, and when I clcik "Help.. Activate
Product.."  I get a prodcut is already activated.  This confuses me, and
gives me a nagging concern.
 
  Is this product ever going to expire or require activation? I'd really
like to know before it happens to some laptop user 2500 miles away on a
weekend business trip.  
 
  This also brings up the question of if product activation is so important,
why doesn't this product include it?  But maybe it's better not to think too
deeply about MS's motives.
 
 
 Jim Helfer
 WTW Architects
Pittsburgh PA
 
 
 
[1] Which by the way I beleive wouldn't be running half as great as it is
without the skills I have gleaned from this mailing list and it's members.
Thanks guys.  If you're all unprofessional unethical MS-owned vendor whores,
then I think we need more unprofessional, unethical, MS-woned vendor whores
!  Thanks Guys!
 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation

[Erik Sojka]

You should be OK, as long as your purchase records and paper license count
match up against your usage in the event of an audit.  

I'll assume that you purchase your MS products from a reseller who
participates in one of the Volume programs - Select, OLP, Enterprise, etc. -
and that you got one Outlook 2003 CD and all of your CALs as paper licenses.
In the case of volume media, the activation is disabled.  When MS announced
their plans for product activation years ago, corporate customers (rightly)
complained that they didn't want to have to activate 100s of copies of
Office.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation
> 
> 
> 
>  
>   I've just bought Exchange 2003 and CALs for the office.  We 
> are still
> running  Exchage 5.5 SP4 [1], and we have eagerly started 
> installing OL2003
> to use all the cool new features.  
>  
>   My question is about product activation for Outlook 2003.  
> We aren't asked
> to activate this product when installed, and when I clcik 
> "Help.. Activate
> Product.."  I get a prodcut is already activated.  This 
> confuses me, and
> gives me a nagging concern.
>  
>   Is this product ever going to expire or require activation? 
> I'd really
> like to know before it happens to some laptop user 2500 miles 
> away on a
> weekend business trip.  
>  
>   This also brings up the question of if product activation 
> is so important,
> why doesn't this product include it?  But maybe it's better 
> not to think too
> deeply about MS's motives.
>  
>  
>  Jim Helfer
>  WTW Architects
> Pittsburgh PA
>  
>  
>  
> [1] Which by the way I beleive wouldn't be running half as 
> great as it is
> without the skills I have gleaned from this mailing list and 
> it's members.
> Thanks guys.  If you're all unprofessional unethical MS-owned 
> vendor whores,
> then I think we need more unprofessional, unethical, MS-woned 
> vendor whores
> !  Thanks Guys!
>  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

[Peter Orlowski]

That's odd.  I did the exact same thing in my lab when I was testing Ex2003
and a reinstall brought it back.

- Peter

-Original Message-
From: Simon Bond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

I have a test system (thank goodness) that I accidentally deleted the
default web site on (containing the E2003 files). Not the end of the
world I thought, I'll just reinstall Exchange and it'll put all the
files back. Oh no.
What it seems to do (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it
rebuilds the directory structure of the site in IIS but the default page
it returns when I try to access it from the web (or browsing through
IIS) is the C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\iisstart.htm page, which is an error
page. The correct page doesn't seem to be restored by the
reinstallation. Any ideas?

Thanking you in advance,

Simon

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

[Simon Bond]

Cheers, but unfortunately, this doesn't appear to exist.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: 05 December 2003 03:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page


You should be able to create the website and virtual directories
manually and point them to \\.\backofficestorage

-Original Message-
From: Simon Bond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

I have a test system (thank goodness) that I accidentally deleted the
default web site on (containing the E2003 files). Not the end of the
world I thought, I'll just reinstall Exchange and it'll put all the
files back. Oh no. What it seems to do (and please correct me if I'm
wrong) is that it rebuilds the directory structure of the site in IIS
but the default page it returns when I try to access it from the web (or
browsing through
IIS) is the C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\iisstart.htm page, which is an error
page. The correct page doesn't seem to be restored by the
reinstallation. Any ideas?

Thanking you in advance,

Simon

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

You should be able to create the website and virtual directories
manually and point them to \\.\backofficestorage

-Original Message-
From: Simon Bond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page

I have a test system (thank goodness) that I accidentally deleted the
default web site on (containing the E2003 files). Not the end of the
world I thought, I'll just reinstall Exchange and it'll put all the
files back. Oh no.
What it seems to do (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it
rebuilds the directory structure of the site in IIS but the default page
it returns when I try to access it from the web (or browsing through
IIS) is the C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\iisstart.htm page, which is an error
page. The correct page doesn't seem to be restored by the
reinstallation. Any ideas?

Thanking you in advance,

Simon

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[David Lemson]

Quite a lot of info has been posted to the following web page:

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/support/e2k3owa.asp

David 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

But, one could argue that this should have been a documented scenario...
I'm not saying one way or the other. Just that it has taken an
interesting turn.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David N. Precht
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

But...
A preliminary investigation by Microsoft indicated that the issue occurs
only with Kerberos authentication disabled, which the vendor said is
uncommon. "We recommend that our customers ensure that Kerberos
authentication is enabled, which is the default configuration,"
Microsoft said in a statement Friday. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


This has taken a new turn...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/HNmsflaw_1.html 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff,
Michael
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs
have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off 
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this?
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix

> > yet".
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> > > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows

> > > of the issue but does not h

RE: exchange 2003 ma!lbox move fa!lure

[Wohlgemuth, Mike]

how many domains?

do you have a RUS for each domain?

Mike


-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: exchange 2003 ma!lbox move fa!lure


first xch 2003 server in xch 5.5 site. everything has gone by the book
so far and first mailbox move went great from local 5.5 sp4 server to
xch 2003 server. every move after that has failed with:

item adsPath="LDAP://kaobrands.net/cn=Basrai\,
Huzaifah,ou=Users,ou=SAP,dc=kbc,dc=kaobrands,dc=net" class="user">
  Preparing mailbox to be
moved.
- 
  An internal processing error has occurred. Try restarting the Exchange
System Manager or the Microsoft Exchange Information Store service, or
both.

I found two articles:

one on having anti virus (none on server) and one on rebuilding the RUS.
I have done that twice now and even let it sit over the weekend to no
avail.

Any others seen this or have suggestions?

I have tried to move mailboxes using:

ESM on mail server
ESM on GC server
DSA.MSC on mail server and GC server

TIA

Chris


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: exchange 2003 ma!lbox move fa!lure

[Chad Gibson]

Under your recipient policies.  Look at the properties of the policy with
the highest priority.  Go into the properties. Go to the email address tab.
What is checked in there??  Got anything like rfax or something odd?

-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: exchange 2003 ma!lbox move fa!lure

first xch 2003 server in xch 5.5 site. everything has gone by the book so
far and first mailbox move went great from local 5.5 sp4 server to xch 2003
server. every move after that has failed with:

item adsPath="LDAP://kaobrands.net/cn=Basrai\,
Huzaifah,ou=Users,ou=SAP,dc=kbc,dc=kaobrands,dc=net" class="user">
  Preparing mailbox to be
moved.
- 
  An internal processing error has occurred. Try restarting the Exchange
System Manager or the Microsoft Exchange Information Store service, or both.

I found two articles:

one on having anti virus (none on server) and one on rebuilding the RUS. I
have done that twice now and even let it sit over the weekend to no avail.

Any others seen this or have suggestions?

I have tried to move mailboxes using:

ESM on mail server
ESM on GC server
DSA.MSC on mail server and GC server

TIA

Chris


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Martin Blackstone]

But, one could argue that this should have been a documented scenario...
I'm not saying one way or the other. Just that it has taken an interesting
turn.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David N. Precht
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

But...
A preliminary investigation by Microsoft indicated that the issue occurs
only with Kerberos authentication disabled, which the vendor said is
uncommon. "We recommend that our customers ensure that Kerberos
authentication is enabled, which is the default configuration,"
Microsoft said in a statement Friday. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


This has taken a new turn...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/HNmsflaw_1.html 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs have
no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off 
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this?
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix 
> > yet".
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> > > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows

> > > of the issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many

> > > others have seen this issue and have received the same answer from

> > > Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue.
> > > 
> > >  
> > >

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[David N. Precht]

But...
A preliminary investigation by Microsoft indicated that the issue occurs
only with Kerberos authentication disabled, which the vendor said is
uncommon. "We recommend that our customers ensure that Kerberos
authentication is enabled, which is the default configuration,"
Microsoft said in a statement Friday. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


This has taken a new turn...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/HNmsflaw_1.html 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff,
Michael
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs
have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this?
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
> > yet".
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> > > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows

> > > of the issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many

> > > others have seen this issue and have received the same answer from

> > > Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > 
> > > Network Administrator
> > > 
> > > Investment Scorecard, Inc.
> > > 
> > > 615.301.7611
> 

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Martin Blackstone]

This has taken a new turn...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/21/HNmsflaw_1.html 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs have
no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off 
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this? 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix 
> > yet".
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it... 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 
> > > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows 
> > > of the issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many 
> > > others have seen this issue and have received the same answer from 
> > > Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > 
> > > Network Administrator
> > > 
> > > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > > 
> > > 615.301.7611
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/>
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is
> now out and
> > is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting 
> > review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the 
> > problem is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how 
&g

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Jeff Beckham]

I have heard of this issue in Exchange 2003 FE/BE environments.  It does
not happen without a FE server or with a 2003 FE and 2000 BE.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff,
Michael
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:57 AM
Posted To: Exchange Discussion List
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?


-Original Message-
From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw

 

We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random and
has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the issue but
does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have seen this
issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.

This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA
indefinitely because of the issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Johnson CCNA

Network Administrator

Investment Scorecard, Inc. 

615.301.7611

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.investmentscorecard.com  

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Bowles, John (OIG/OMP)]

Did someone just say beer  Christ...it's Miller Time now boys/girls

_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Sadler
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


So to fix this, send beer to Tom, then to Martin, then Ben, then me :)



Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
913-339-6700 x194

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


I'm thinking the same thing. 
I imagine this guy managed to flub up his install some way or another
and now it's a bug to him 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups or anywhere
else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
stink about it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it...
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> have seen this issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA

> indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc.
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Martin Blackstone]

This is no bug. This is BAS.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs
have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off 
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this? 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not 
> > have a fix yet".  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it... 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and
> > > has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> > > the issue but
> > > does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> > > seen this
> > > issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > 
> > > Network Administrator
> > > 
> > > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > > 
> > > 615.301.7611
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is 
> now out and
> > is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
> > review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how 
> > the problem
> > is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and ho

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Erik Sojka]

It could be the poster's BAS.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
> participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since 
> that would be
> a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said 
> nothing.   
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  
> 
> I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs
> have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  
> 
> Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to 
> shut off 
> > OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So you have seen this? 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Erik Sojka
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not 
> > > have a fix yet".  
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I have not heard of it... 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ben Winzenz
> > > > Network Engineer
> > > > Gardner & White
> > > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> > > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > > Matthew Johnson
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> > > noticed a
> > > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > > random and
> > > > has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> > > > the issue but
> > > > does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> > > > seen this
> > > > issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> > > > 
> > > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> > > shut off OWA
> > > > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > > 
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > 
> > > > In

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Woodruff, Michael]

Not that I am aware of.  My boss just passed it on to me.  I'm not a
participate in that list.  I just thought it was odd since that would be
a huge flaw and Microsoft or anyone for that matter has said nothing.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs
have no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off 
> OWA indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this? 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not 
> > have a fix yet".  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it... 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and
> > > has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> > > the issue but
> > > does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> > > seen this
> > > issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > 
> > > Network Administrator
> > > 
> > > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > > 
> > > 615.301.7611
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is 
> now out and
> > is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
> > review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how 
> > the problem
> > is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
> > interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to 
> > derail any
> > chance of making progress.
> > -
> > 
> > 
> > __

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Ali Wilkes (IT)]

I seem to remember something similar when e2k came out, and it was a
permissions issue.

Don't know if I still have anything about it tho.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


It's always Microsoft's fault.

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I'm thinking the same thing.
> I imagine this guy managed to flub up his install some way or 
> another and
> now it's a bug to him 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups
> or anywhere
> else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
> stink about it. 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix 
> yet".
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > I have not heard of it...
> > 
> > 
> > Ben Winzenz
> > Network Engineer
> > Gardner & White
> > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Matthew Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and
> noticed a
> > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> > and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> > issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> > have seen this issue and have received the same answer from 
> Microsoft.
> > 
> > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to
> shut off OWA
> 
> > indefinitely because of the issue.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > 
> > Network Administrator
> > 
> > Investment Scorecard, Inc.
> > 
> > 615.301.7611
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -
> Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and

> is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting 
> review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the 
> problem is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how 
> special interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to
> derail any
> chance of making progress.
> -
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Erik Sojka]

It's always Microsoft's fault.

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I'm thinking the same thing. 
> I imagine this guy managed to flub up his install some way or 
> another and
> now it's a bug to him 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups 
> or anywhere
> else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
> stink about it. 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
> yet".  
> 
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > I have not heard of it... 
> > 
> > 
> > Ben Winzenz
> > Network Engineer
> > Gardner & White
> > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 
> > Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> noticed a 
> > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> > and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> > issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> > have seen this issue and have received the same answer from 
> Microsoft.
> > 
> > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> shut off OWA
> 
> > indefinitely because of the issue.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > 
> > Network Administrator
> > 
> > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > 
> > 615.301.7611
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -
> Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
> is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
> review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how 
> the problem
> is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
> interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to 
> derail any
> chance of making progress.
> -
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Erik Sojka]

All seriousness aside, I know nothing about this issue.  

I'm inferring from the other responses to this thread that if two MVPs have
no knowledge of the issue it probably doesn't exist.  

Mike W: Were there any follow-up posts on NTBUGTRAQ about this?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to 
> shut off OWA
> indefinitely because of the issue. 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > So you have seen this? 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not 
> > have a fix yet".  
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have not heard of it... 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ben Winzenz
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Gardner & White
> > > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Matthew Johnson
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> > noticed a
> > > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > > random and
> > > has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> > > the issue but
> > > does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> > > seen this
> > > issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> > shut off OWA
> > > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > > 
> > > Network Administrator
> > > 
> > > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > > 
> > > 615.301.7611
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is 
> now out and
> > is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
> > review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how 
> > the problem
> > is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
> > interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to 
> > derail any
> > chance of making progress.
> > -
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> L

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Bob Sadler]

So to fix this, send beer to Tom, then to Martin, then Ben, then me :)



Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
913-339-6700 x194

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


I'm thinking the same thing. 
I imagine this guy managed to flub up his install some way or another
and now it's a bug to him 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups or anywhere
else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
stink about it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it...
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At:
> Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> have seen this issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA

> indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc.
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Martin Blackstone]

I'm thinking the same thing. 
I imagine this guy managed to flub up his install some way or another and
now it's a bug to him 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups or anywhere
else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
stink about it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it... 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 
> Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a 
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> have seen this issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA

> indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Erik Sojka]

I saw a posting about it on NTBUGTRAQ.COM.  Some guy had to shut off OWA
indefinitely because of the issue. 



> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> So you have seen this? 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not 
> have a fix yet".  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > I have not heard of it... 
> > 
> > 
> > Ben Winzenz
> > Network Engineer
> > Gardner & White
> > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> > 
> > 
> > Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and 
> noticed a
> > severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> > credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> > random and
> > has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> > the issue but
> > does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> > seen this
> > issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> > 
> > This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to 
> shut off OWA
> > indefinitely because of the issue. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Matthew Johnson CCNA
> > 
> > Network Administrator
> > 
> > Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> > 
> > 615.301.7611
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -
> Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
> is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
> review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how 
> the problem
> is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
> interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to 
> derail any
> chance of making progress.
> -
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Ben Winzenz]

I haven't seen any reports of this on any of the newsgroups or anywhere
else.  If it was this big of a flaw, I suspect there would be a big
stink about it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:12 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix
yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it... 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 
> Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a 
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own 
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random 
> and has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the 
> issue but does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others 
> have seen this issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA

> indefinitely because of the issue.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Martin Blackstone]

So you have seen this? 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it... 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> random and
> has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> the issue but
> does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> seen this
> issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA
> indefinitely because of the issue. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Erik Sojka]

That's because "Microsoft knows of the issue but does not have a fix yet".  

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> I have not heard of it... 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
> 
> 
> Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw
> 
>  
> 
> We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
> severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
> credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at 
> random and
> has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of 
> the issue but
> does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have 
> seen this
> issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.
> 
> This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA
> indefinitely because of the issue. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Johnson CCNA
> 
> Network Administrator
> 
> Investment Scorecard, Inc. 
> 
> 615.301.7611
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
www.investmentscorecard.com <http://www.investmentscorecard.com/> 

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=
english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?

[Ben Winzenz]

I have not heard of it... 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:57 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA Flaw?


Is this BS or has anyone else heard of this "flaw"?


-Original Message-
From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Johnson
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA major security flaw

 

We have upgraded our servers to Microsoft Exchange 2003 and noticed a
severe security issue with OWA. When you log in with your own
credentials you may be logged into another user's mailbox at random and
has full access to this user's mailbox. Microsoft knows of the issue but
does not have a fix yet. I was wondering how many others have seen this
issue and have received the same answer from Microsoft.

This seems to be a major security flaw and we have had to shut off OWA
indefinitely because of the issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Johnson CCNA

Network Administrator

Investment Scorecard, Inc. 

615.301.7611

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.investmentscorecard.com  

 


-
Marcus Ranum's new book "The Myth of Homeland Security" is now out and
is available from http://www.amazon.com/ranum In this hard-hitting
review of the homeland security business, Ranum shows us how the problem
is vastly harder than it's being made to sound, and how special
interests, butt covering, and bureaucracy are threatening to derail any
chance of making progress.
-


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 test scenario

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

I have never seen that error.  Make sure that the client system's DNS and
WINS clients are configured properly and that you have Outlook properly
configured to use MAPI (assuming that is the protocol you're using).

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Stuart
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 test scenario

E2k3 W2k3 DC AD XPClient Outlook2003

Hi all

Trying to test all this out, and running into problem when trying to set up
mail under outlook.  When trying to resolve mailbox, receive error:

Unable to resolve name; Bookmark is invalid

Any ideas?

Thanks

Stu



Steps

setup W2k3 DC and DNS on same machine
setup W2k3  and exchange 2K3 member server
run dcdiag
run forestprep
run domainprep
setup XP box as client
setup test user
on exchange box, set up mailbox (does not show in store - until mail sent or
logon as I understand) tried to create account on Outlook2003
when trying to resolve name receive error above.






Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this e-mail and any
attachments may be legally privileged and confidential.  If you are not an
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently
delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately.  You should not retain,
copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all
or any part of the contents to any other person.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Inplace Upgrade?

[Jason Clishe]

Obviously you've skimmed over a lot of details, but overall that method
will work just fine.

Jason 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PATRICK,
MARTIN
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Inplace Upgrade?


I need to upgrade my Exchange 2000 SP3 installation to Exchange 2003.
My plan is to install a second Front-End server with existing E2K 2000
box.  The new FE will be Windows 2003/Exchange 2003.  I will then
install a new Windows 2003/Exchange 2003 Back-End server in my E2K site.
After that, I will do a mailbox move off my Exchange 2000 servers to the
new Exchange 2003 server.  I will finally uninstall the Exchange 2000
Back-End and Front-End and redirect my incoming mail and OWA to the new
2003 Front-End.  I want to use the upgrade as a change to get fresh
installs on all my Exchange servers.  This is like the in-place upgrade,
but I have not seen much about this approach with Exchange 2003.  
Will this plan work?  Am I missing something?

Thanks for your comments.

Martin





_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Inplace Upgrade?

[Fyodorov, Andrey]

Don't forget to rehome the system folders (Free/Busy and OAB) before you
remove the original 2000 server.

-Original Message-
From: PATRICK, MARTIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Inplace Upgrade?


I need to upgrade my Exchange 2000 SP3 installation to Exchange 2003.
My plan is to install a second Front-End server with existing E2K 2000
box.  The new FE will be Windows 2003/Exchange 2003.  I will then
install a new Windows 2003/Exchange 2003 Back-End server in my E2K site.
After that, I will do a mailbox move off my Exchange 2000 servers to the
new Exchange 2003 server.  I will finally uninstall the Exchange 2000
Back-End and Front-End and redirect my incoming mail and OWA to the new
2003 Front-End.  I want to use the upgrade as a change to get fresh
installs on all my Exchange servers.  This is like the in-place upgrade,
but I have not seen much about this approach with Exchange 2003.  
Will this plan work?  Am I missing something?

Thanks for your comments.

Martin





_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Fredrick Zilz]

Update: 
This is the second morning that I have not had to reboot, everything is
running fine.   I have no comfort from this as I don't know what changed
to cause the problem or what has changed to end it.  I am back to running
GFI Mail Security and Mail Essentials.  Backups were run last night, GFI
updates last night and no issues developed??  I do highly suspect one or
more of the GFI services at a minimum aggrevating the issue if not the
root cause.




> Obviously something is hanging up, and I'm not sure it's Exchange.  Instead
> of rebooting the entire machine, you might try restarting individual
> services to try to figure out what's hanging.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Fredrick Zilz]

I attempted to do this, but was focused on the exchange server and IIS. 
This morning I did not have to reboot: Last night at 9:00 I installed a
GFI Mailsecurity patch to correctly id MIMAIL virus (was being caught as
corrupt zip file).  This installation involved stopping IIS and all
associated services, Stopping Information store, Stoping GFI services. 
Apply patch.  Restart IIS, Information store, GFI.  The only other thing I
did was a full back up of my Information store earlier in the evening.

Last Friday I rebooted the server twice during the day and had lost all my
outlook clients connectivity.  I eventually disabled GFI Mail essentials
and after another reboot, got connectivity back.  I left GFI Mail
essentials service stoped thinking that I had pinpointed the problem, but
Monday and Tuesday morning I had the issue come up again and ended up
rebooting the servers.  I now have Mail Essentials running again and as I
said this morning I did not have to reboot at least not so far :-).

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Fredrick Zilz]

To say nothing has changed would be incorrect.  There have been updates to
my GFI software both Mail Essentials and Mail Security.  There are a few
errors in my event log that I have not resolved - these are not new.

Event Type: Error
Event Source:   DCOM
Event Category: None
Event ID:   10002
Date:   11/6/2003
Time:   8:03:06 AM
User:   NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE
Computer:   IH-EXCHANGE
Description:
Access denied attempting to launch a DCOM Server. The server is:
{0C0A3666-30C9-11D0-8F20-00805F2CD064}
The user is NETWORK SERVICE/NT AUTHORITY, SID=S-1-5-20.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.

and from the applicaton event log:

Event Type: Warning
Event Source:   W3SVC-WP
Event Category: None
Event ID:   2266
Date:   11/5/2003
Time:   1:47:16 PM
User:   N/A
Computer:   IH-EXCHANGE
Description:
The account that the current worker process is running under does not have
SeTcbPrivilege privilege, the anonymous password sync feature and the
Digest authentication feature are disabled.

The last set of MS Office 2003 upgrades took place and I am sure there
have been dat updates.




_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Greg Eytcheson]

I get the same basic issue on a regular basis with Exchange 2003/Windows
2000/GFI Mail Security 8. It happens absolutely every time the
anti-virus (standard BitDefender and Norman) is updated. However, my
slowdown rarely lasts more than about 30 seconds.  I have similar
hardware (dual xeon/2GB RAM) with about 1000 mail users - but I have
never had the slowdowns last more than a minute.

I am quite certain that the problem rests squarely in GFI MailSecurity
but it is not a big enough issue for me to consider changing to a
different AV vendor.  I've just assumed that the update had to
stop/start STORE or some other critical service for the AV engines to
update.  In over three years of using GFI, I haven't had a single
viri/worm/exploit make it past the virus scanner.  With that kind of
record, I will tolerate a few seconds of delay when the virus
definitions are updated.

Greg

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fredrick Zilz
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

Each morning for the last 5, I have ended up rebooting my Exchange 2003
(on windows 2003 member server)because my Outlook clients (xp and 2003)
recieve messages stating that outlook is downloading data from the
exchange server, on non cached setups it just sits like this, on cached
versions a red exclamation appears in the system tray. If you right
click and choose cancel server request, it looks like all is connected
for a minute or so, then it happens again no updates take place.  If I
right click on the outlook icon in the client system tray, it shows
three connections to exchange server mail at least one of which will
show multiple errors and an extended response time.  Synchronization
error log just shows "Network problems are preventing connection to the
microsoft exchange server."  I have windows 2000 sp4, and Windows xp
SP1(fully
updated) clients mosly running Outlook 2003 some in exchange cached mode
and some not cached, as well as a couple Outlook xp clients.  All have
same issue.

The server is available (shared folders, remote desktop).  The Event log
does not show any unusual errors - nothing that marks the start of this
issue.  The Outlook 2003 client shows connected but with a red
exclamation on the system tray icon. - does not shift to disconnected.

The Exchange server is a dual xeon 2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram.  Processor usage
does not go above 20%, memory usage is normal, and the server has only
one nic (gigabit) on a managed gigabit switch.  The whole network is
only about 35 computers and three servers.  The whole thing sits behind
a checkpoint firewall, so the lan users are not going through a router
or firewall to reach the server.  All users are experiencing the same
thing at the same time.

After I reboot, all is well until the next morning sometime.  I have
Virus protection on the server but it is set to exclude the exchsrvr
directories and subdirectories.  I have GFI Mail Essentials and GFI Mail
Security running  I have tried disabling GFI Mail Essentials (stopped
Services), but the problem still came back.  Automated Backup has been
suspended until I resolve the issue (arcserve brightstor).

I upgraded office xp to 2003 in about three sets over the course of 5
days. It was only after the last set that I started seeing this issue,
but all are installed off the same shared  folder using the same Group
Policy.
 I had two computers on the Beta 2 of Office 2003 for months did not see
this issue.

Exchange Server has been 2003 since the RTM release.

I don't know what else to look at - anybody have any advice?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Kevinm[MVP]]

This just started 5 days ago but has been running fine since June? And
nothing at all has changed, not even a cable being bumped in the server
room? Any errors at all in the event log?

-- Rev. Kevinm WLKMMAS, Exchange MVP 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fredrick Zilz
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

Each morning for the last 5, I have ended up rebooting my Exchange 2003
(on windows 2003 member server)because my Outlook clients (xp and 2003)
recieve messages stating that outlook is downloading data from the
exchange server, on non cached setups it just sits like this, on cached
versions a red exclamation appears in the system tray. If you right
click
and choose cancel server request, it looks like all is connected for a
minute or so, then it happens again no updates take place.  If I right
click on the outlook icon in the client system tray, it shows three
connections to exchange server mail at least one of which will show
multiple errors and an extended response time.  Synchronization error
log
just shows "Network problems are preventing connection to the microsoft
exchange server."  I have windows 2000 sp4, and Windows xp SP1(fully
updated) clients mosly running Outlook 2003 some in exchange cached mode
and some not cached, as well as a couple Outlook xp clients.  All have
same issue.

The server is available (shared folders, remote desktop).  The Event log
does not show any unusual errors - nothing that marks the start of this
issue.  The Outlook 2003 client shows connected but with a red
exclamation
on the system tray icon. - does not shift to disconnected.

The Exchange server is a dual xeon 2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram.  Processor usage
does not go above 20%, memory usage is normal, and the server has only
one
nic (gigabit) on a managed gigabit switch.  The whole network is only
about 35 computers and three servers.  The whole thing sits behind a
checkpoint firewall, so the lan users are not going through a router or
firewall to reach the server.  All users are experiencing the same thing
at the same time.

After I reboot, all is well until the next morning sometime.  I have
Virus
protection on the server but it is set to exclude the exchsrvr
directories
and subdirectories.  I have GFI Mail Essentials and GFI Mail Security
running  I have tried disabling GFI Mail Essentials (stopped Services),
but the problem still came back.  Automated Backup has been suspended
until I resolve the issue (arcserve brightstor).

I upgraded office xp to 2003 in about three sets over the course of 5
days. It was only after the last set that I started seeing this issue,
but
all are installed off the same shared  folder using the same Group
Policy.
 I had two computers on the Beta 2 of Office 2003 for months did not see
this issue.

Exchange Server has been 2003 since the RTM release.

I don't know what else to look at - anybody have any advice?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

Obviously something is hanging up, and I'm not sure it's Exchange.  Instead
of rebooting the entire machine, you might try restarting individual
services to try to figure out what's hanging.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fredrick Zilz
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Outlook 2003 connectivity issue

Each morning for the last 5, I have ended up rebooting my Exchange 2003 (on
windows 2003 member server)because my Outlook clients (xp and 2003) recieve
messages stating that outlook is downloading data from the exchange server,
on non cached setups it just sits like this, on cached versions a red
exclamation appears in the system tray. If you right click and choose cancel
server request, it looks like all is connected for a minute or so, then it
happens again no updates take place.  If I right click on the outlook icon
in the client system tray, it shows three connections to exchange server
mail at least one of which will show multiple errors and an extended
response time.  Synchronization error log just shows "Network problems are
preventing connection to the microsoft exchange server."  I have windows
2000 sp4, and Windows xp SP1(fully
updated) clients mosly running Outlook 2003 some in exchange cached mode and
some not cached, as well as a couple Outlook xp clients.  All have same
issue.

The server is available (shared folders, remote desktop).  The Event log
does not show any unusual errors - nothing that marks the start of this
issue.  The Outlook 2003 client shows connected but with a red exclamation
on the system tray icon. - does not shift to disconnected.

The Exchange server is a dual xeon 2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram.  Processor usage does
not go above 20%, memory usage is normal, and the server has only one nic
(gigabit) on a managed gigabit switch.  The whole network is only about 35
computers and three servers.  The whole thing sits behind a checkpoint
firewall, so the lan users are not going through a router or firewall to
reach the server.  All users are experiencing the same thing at the same
time.

After I reboot, all is well until the next morning sometime.  I have Virus
protection on the server but it is set to exclude the exchsrvr directories
and subdirectories.  I have GFI Mail Essentials and GFI Mail Security
running  I have tried disabling GFI Mail Essentials (stopped Services), but
the problem still came back.  Automated Backup has been suspended until I
resolve the issue (arcserve brightstor).

I upgraded office xp to 2003 in about three sets over the course of 5 days.
It was only after the last set that I started seeing this issue, but all are
installed off the same shared  folder using the same Group Policy.
 I had two computers on the Beta 2 of Office 2003 for months did not see
this issue.

Exchange Server has been 2003 since the RTM release.

I don't know what else to look at - anybody have any advice?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Disk Management vs 5.5

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

The fundamentals are the same, except that since you can have multiple
storage groups, you should have a separate physical volume for each set of
log files.  You could also have separate a separate physical volume for each
database, but the need for that is something you'd need to determine--it's
not a general recommendation.

You change the location of the log files in the properties page of the
storage group, and locations and/or names the database files in the
properties page of the database.  Exchange System Manager takes care of the
dismount, move and mount process.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris H
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Disk Management vs 5.5

in 5.5 we always had 3 sets of disks (2 mirrors and a raid 5) for OS --
Logfiles -- Stores.
in setting up my first 2003 server it doesnt seem to follow this paradigm .
. . not that I see . . . or anything like a PerfWizard, etc. Does anyone
know "best practice" for Exchange 2003 disk architecture?

tia!

Chris


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exchange 2003 Install Problems

[Chris H]

the delegate authorty did it. thanks!

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Orlowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Install Problems


> Who are you installing Exchange as?  Try installing it as the user you
> specified as the Exchange Admin during the Forestprep/domainprep steps.
>
> You will probably need to delegate control to your user account as that
> superuser to be able to install Exchange 2003.
>
> This is what I had to do to install it into my 5.5 environment.
>
> - Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:54 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2003 Install Problems
>
> I am installing the first 2003 server in a 5.5 site.
>
> I have done all the forest and domain prep work as well as the rest using
> the excellent "guide" they now have when installing Exchange 2003.
> BUT .  .  . when installing the server itself I get this error when trying
> to select the Messaging and Collaboration components for install:
>
> The component "Microsoft Exchange Messaging and Collaboration Servicfes"
> cannot be assigned the action "install" because:
> - You either do not have permissions to complete this operation or Active
> Directory has not replicated all the necessary permissions for the deleted
> items container. Please check that you have the necessary permissions to
> modify Exchange components and that replication is complete before running
> setup.
>
> The account I am logged in with has domain admin rights in the parent
domain
> and child domain (exchange getting installed in the child domain),
> enterprise domain and schema rights in the parent domain and Org and Site
> rights in the 5.5 Exchange site.
>
> I found KB article kb817378 which talks about having not run /domainprep
in
> the parent domain, which I hadnt. Just /forestprep.
> So I went back and ran /domainprep as well. It then said I also had to
> configure RUS in the parent domain OR have a GC in the child domain. I
have
> 1 GC in the parent domain and 2 GC's in the child domain. I tried to
install
> RUS in the parent domain but on the second step of the wizard where you
> select the computer Exchange is running on is greyed out and I can do
> nothing but cancel. I am assuming this is as I dont have Exchange
installed
> anywhere? Why would this be the fix then for not being able to complete an
> Exchange install?
>
> any ideas?
>
> tia
>
> chris
>
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
>
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Install Problems

[Peter Orlowski]

Who are you installing Exchange as?  Try installing it as the user you
specified as the Exchange Admin during the Forestprep/domainprep steps.  

You will probably need to delegate control to your user account as that
superuser to be able to install Exchange 2003.

This is what I had to do to install it into my 5.5 environment.  

- Peter

-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Install Problems

I am installing the first 2003 server in a 5.5 site.

I have done all the forest and domain prep work as well as the rest using
the excellent "guide" they now have when installing Exchange 2003.
BUT .  .  . when installing the server itself I get this error when trying
to select the Messaging and Collaboration components for install:

The component "Microsoft Exchange Messaging and Collaboration Servicfes"
cannot be assigned the action "install" because:
- You either do not have permissions to complete this operation or Active
Directory has not replicated all the necessary permissions for the deleted
items container. Please check that you have the necessary permissions to
modify Exchange components and that replication is complete before running
setup.

The account I am logged in with has domain admin rights in the parent domain
and child domain (exchange getting installed in the child domain),
enterprise domain and schema rights in the parent domain and Org and Site
rights in the 5.5 Exchange site.

I found KB article kb817378 which talks about having not run /domainprep in
the parent domain, which I hadnt. Just /forestprep.
So I went back and ran /domainprep as well. It then said I also had to
configure RUS in the parent domain OR have a GC in the child domain. I have
1 GC in the parent domain and 2 GC's in the child domain. I tried to install
RUS in the parent domain but on the second step of the wizard where you
select the computer Exchange is running on is greyed out and I can do
nothing but cancel. I am assuming this is as I dont have Exchange installed
anywhere? Why would this be the fix then for not being able to complete an
Exchange install?

any ideas?

tia

chris



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Roger Seielstad]

I know that. That doesn't change the fact that it's a security hole that
forces a large aamount of the security hassles onto each and every server
rather than being able to focus on the network path leading to those
servers.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Holtzclaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> This feature only works with Outlook 2003.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Well, that goes back to corporate rules - one cannot install our VPN
> client on their home machine.
> 
> Even though there is a gatekeeper in the mix, it is 
> fundamentally scary
> to encapuslate RPC point to point.
> 
> In our environment, all traffic coming off the VPN concentators goes
> through a routing segment in which we do traffic analysis/intrusion
> detection, as well as using a fairly high level of 
> authentication prior
> to accepting the VPN connection to begin with.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Lemson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 2:35 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > 
> > Here's the way I look at it:
> > Imagine that employee X uses Outlook on her machine at home to get 
> > access to her mail. Her machine at home is also used by her 12 year 
> > old son, who likes to install random files found on the net,
> > including some
> > trojans.  If you make her VPN, then unless you are very 
> > clever with your
> > firewall rules (and thus hinder usefulness of your VPN), 
> when she VPNs
> > from that machine, it will now be within your corporate 
> > network and able
> > to do all kinds of attacks.  By replacing that with RPC 
> over HTTP, you
> > keep that from happening.
> > Andy's makes a very important point about the fact that no 
> RPC traffic
> > makes it past the HTTPS server until the outside user has been
> > authenticated.  So the key is making sure that you have 
> > strong passwords
> > so that the authentication that people are using from the remote
> > machines to the HTTPS server is as tight as you need.
> > 
> > David
> > This postings is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and 
> confers no 
> > rights.
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:52 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to
> > pass the RPC
> > necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
> > remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the 
> net, rather
> > https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network 
> after the HTTPS
> > has been authenticated. 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger 
> > Seielstad
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a
> > single port.
> > The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
> > well known port.
> > 
> > The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have 
> covered this 
> > discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.
> > 
> > --
> > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > Inovis Inc.
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello All.
> > > 
> > > I really think it is neat t

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Eric Holtzclaw]

This feature only works with Outlook 2003.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP


Well, that goes back to corporate rules - one cannot install our VPN
client on their home machine.

Even though there is a gatekeeper in the mix, it is fundamentally scary
to encapuslate RPC point to point.

In our environment, all traffic coming off the VPN concentators goes
through a routing segment in which we do traffic analysis/intrusion
detection, as well as using a fairly high level of authentication prior
to accepting the VPN connection to begin with.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: David Lemson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 2:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Here's the way I look at it:
> Imagine that employee X uses Outlook on her machine at home to get 
> access to her mail. Her machine at home is also used by her 12 year 
> old son, who likes to install random files found on the net,
> including some
> trojans.  If you make her VPN, then unless you are very 
> clever with your
> firewall rules (and thus hinder usefulness of your VPN), when she VPNs
> from that machine, it will now be within your corporate 
> network and able
> to do all kinds of attacks.  By replacing that with RPC over HTTP, you
> keep that from happening.
> Andy's makes a very important point about the fact that no RPC traffic
> makes it past the HTTPS server until the outside user has been
> authenticated.  So the key is making sure that you have 
> strong passwords
> so that the authentication that people are using from the remote
> machines to the HTTPS server is as tight as you need.
> 
> David
> This postings is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no 
> rights.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to
> pass the RPC
> necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
> remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the net, rather
> https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network after the HTTPS
> has been authenticated. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger 
> Seielstad
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a
> single port.
> The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
> well known port.
> 
> The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this 
> discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All.
> > 
> > I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP,
> > however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the 
> > latest vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> > 
> > What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the
> > discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you 
> secure it?  If
> 
> > no, why?
> > 
> > Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Samantha Bridges
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Roger Seielstad]

Well, that goes back to corporate rules - one cannot install our VPN client
on their home machine.

Even though there is a gatekeeper in the mix, it is fundamentally scary to
encapuslate RPC point to point.

In our environment, all traffic coming off the VPN concentators goes through
a routing segment in which we do traffic analysis/intrusion detection, as
well as using a fairly high level of authentication prior to accepting the
VPN connection to begin with.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: David Lemson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 2:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Here's the way I look at it:
> Imagine that employee X uses Outlook on her machine at home to get
> access to her mail. Her machine at home is also used by her 
> 12 year old
> son, who likes to install random files found on the net, 
> including some
> trojans.  If you make her VPN, then unless you are very 
> clever with your
> firewall rules (and thus hinder usefulness of your VPN), when she VPNs
> from that machine, it will now be within your corporate 
> network and able
> to do all kinds of attacks.  By replacing that with RPC over HTTP, you
> keep that from happening.
> Andy's makes a very important point about the fact that no RPC traffic
> makes it past the HTTPS server until the outside user has been
> authenticated.  So the key is making sure that you have 
> strong passwords
> so that the authentication that people are using from the remote
> machines to the HTTPS server is as tight as you need.
> 
> David
> This postings is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to 
> pass the RPC
> necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
> remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the net, rather
> https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network after the HTTPS
> has been authenticated. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger
> Seielstad
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a 
> single port.
> The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
> well known port.
> 
> The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this
> discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All.
> > 
> > I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP, 
> > however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the 
> > latest vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> > 
> > What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the 
> > discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you 
> secure it?  If
> 
> > no, why?
> > 
> > Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Samantha Bridges
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/re

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Roger Seielstad]

The underlying issue, however, is that you're passing a fundamentally
untrustworthy protocol (RPC) over a significantly more trusted[1] protocol
(http/https). 

This is simply an issue of obfuscating the real network traffic to get
around some significant shortcomings of the RPC protocol.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.

[1] Not that HTTP is any more trustworthy. It is, however, less promiscuous
as a protocol - it has a smaller footprint of what it can and can't do.


> -Original Message-
> From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:52 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to 
> pass the RPC
> necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
> remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the net, rather
> https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network after the HTTPS
> has been authenticated. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger
> Seielstad
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a 
> single port.
> The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
> well known port.
> 
> The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this
> discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All.
> > 
> > I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP, 
> > however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the 
> > latest vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> > 
> > What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the 
> > discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you 
> secure it?  If
> 
> > no, why?
> > 
> > Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Samantha Bridges
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

[David Lemson]

Also check out this very good resource, the Exchange 2003 Deployment
Guide.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/exchange2003/prodd
ocs/library/depguide.asp
(I'm not sure if it's linked in the FAQ)

David 
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Maybe I should be more specific next time...I wasn't looking for a free
ride just maybe some do's and don'ts before I got started.  That last
post with the links was really all I needed.  Thanks.  Sorry for
sounding like a newbie.  I guess I deserved to be made fun of a little.


-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

and J

 don't forget to read
 http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 

before posting again
:-)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/10/2003 7:20:48 a.m. >>>
My friend, you have asked what I call a "consulting engagement"
question.
You want a migration design for free, no?  The quality of what you get
in this, a discussion forum, is worth maybe only a little more than what
you pay for it.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Building a new server...
Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003 Server 

Currently have one server running Windows 2000 Server with Exchange 2000
Server.  On the new server I want to migrate things such as AD, Exchange
mailboxes and public folders from the Windows 2000 box to the Windows
2003
box. What is the best way to migrate all of the data since I am not
performing an upgrade to both products on the same server?  Also, does
anybody know if Symantec Antivirus Filtering 3.0 for Exchange will work
with Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003?  I went to Symantec's site looking
for answers and even their new version called Mail Security for Exchange
Server says it is for Exchange 2000.  Please advise.  Thanks.

J

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[David Lemson]

Here's the way I look at it:
Imagine that employee X uses Outlook on her machine at home to get
access to her mail. Her machine at home is also used by her 12 year old
son, who likes to install random files found on the net, including some
trojans.  If you make her VPN, then unless you are very clever with your
firewall rules (and thus hinder usefulness of your VPN), when she VPNs
from that machine, it will now be within your corporate network and able
to do all kinds of attacks.  By replacing that with RPC over HTTP, you
keep that from happening.
Andy's makes a very important point about the fact that no RPC traffic
makes it past the HTTPS server until the outside user has been
authenticated.  So the key is making sure that you have strong passwords
so that the authentication that people are using from the remote
machines to the HTTPS server is as tight as you need.

David
This postings is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to pass the RPC
necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the net, rather
https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network after the HTTPS
has been authenticated. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger
Seielstad
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a single port.
The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
well known port.

The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this
discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Hello All.
> 
> I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP, 
> however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the 
> latest vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> 
> What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the 
> discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you secure it?  If

> no, why?
> 
> Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Samantha Bridges
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[Ed Crowley]

Did you write a review?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Peters
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

Good info Dean, although the customer has been "sold" by Microsoft and a
good hardware salesman that positioned the "criticality" of Exchange HA in
the enterprise.  When I informed the customer of some of the administration
realities, and associated operational and disaster recovery challenges, I
was directed to review the Microsoft whitepapers!

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[Wayne Peters]

Good info Dean, although the customer has been "sold" by Microsoft and a
good hardware salesman that positioned the "criticality" of Exchange HA in
the enterprise.  When I informed the customer of some of the
administration realities, and associated operational and disaster recovery
challenges, I was directed to review the Microsoft whitepapers!

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Webb, Andy]

Note that ISA server is actually smart about being able to pass the RPC
necessary for Exchange and not other malformated RPC traffic if I
remember correctly.  And you're not opening up RPC to the net, rather
https.  The RPC traffic originates inside your network after the HTTPS
has been authenticated. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger
Seielstad
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a single port.
The single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single,
well known port.

The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this
discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Hello All.
> 
> I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP, 
> however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the 
> latest vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> 
> What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the 
> discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you secure it?  If

> no, why?
> 
> Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Samantha Bridges
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Roger Seielstad]

The single biggest benefit of RPC over HTTP is that it's a single port. The
single biggest problem with RPC over HTTP is that it's a single, well known
port.

The archives from last month (or maybe a few back) have covered this
discussion, but ultimately its not a terribly secure thing.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP
> 
> 
> Hello All.
> 
> I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP,
> however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with 
> the latest
> vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..
> 
> What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the
> discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you secure it?  If
> no, why?
> 
> Hoping for some opinions and comments.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Samantha Bridges
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Arlo Clizer]

I'll probably make use of it. I don't have control over the VPN solution in
place where I work and suspect it may be miss-configured. This will allow me
to bypass the VPN and let my users leverage Outlook 2003 wherever they are
working. I'll secure it by using HTTPS and rely on AV software and firewalls
(both personal and server based) everywhere else.

-Original Message-
From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

Hello All.

I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP,
however, I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the latest
vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..

What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the
discussion use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you secure it?  If
no, why?

Hoping for some opinions and comments.

Thank you,

Samantha Bridges

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

[Ed Crowley]

I see it as being of some marginal benefit.  I wouldn't think that you'd
want to replace a VPN with this capability, but for people like me who work
from customer sites, from where it is usually not possible to get a VPN
session through the firewall, or for coffeehouse kiosk users it could be
useful.  My employer doesn't publish OWA, much less RPC over HTTP, to the
Internet, so the feature isn't of any personal benefit just now. 

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges, Samantha
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 RPC over HTTP

Hello All.

I really think it is neat that Exchange 2003 can do RPC over HTTP, however,
I don't see this being very secure.  Especially with the latest
vulnerabilities i.eBlaster...etc..

What is your opinions about this new feature.  Will anyone in the discussion
use the RPC over HTTP?  If yes, how will you secure it?  If no, why?

Hoping for some opinions and comments.

Thank you,

Samantha Bridges

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[M2Web Concepts]

I have worked in the past 5 months with Win2K3 and E2k3 clustering both
Active/Active and Active/Passive the issues which you talk about have in
large part gone. However we choose to go with Active/Passive because of
lic. Issue. In active/active one needs one more lic for win2k3 and E2k3
Ent but in A/P the second lic for E2k3 is not needed. We have had a
stable cluster for 60 days now (having installed the 120 day version of
E2K3) and were able to do it for $4800.00 above what the cost of having
no cluster would have been. 

I have listened to all arguments made for not clustering or why cluster
so on I am happy, my boss is happy, CTO is happy as well as the CEO
that we did it! An argument that WINS every other.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Cunningham
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

Related , but totally unreleated to the thread, just some food for
thought :-)

The interesting thing about clustering, is more:

What are you trying to achieve?

Availability, ok, why? what are your business requirements?

Is it:

a) the organisation *really* can't do without email for a day.
b) I can't do without my diary for a day because it causes embarrassment
for me not knowing what meetings I am at and who my contacts are
c) something else

I worked for a company that needed b).
We looked at SANS and clusters and alike, priced it up and picked
ourselves off the floor. Scary price but , could still justify it.
We looked at other threats to the availability of exchange that a
cluster may not be able to eliminate, virii, power or infrastructure
failure (hmmm NY blackout springs to mind) and look at how to mitigate
them.

We then looked at b) again and said "how else can we get this outcome"

We then came up with the idea of an Pocket PC for every person that
needed their contacts and calendar.
At the end of the day for every risk we identified (apart for fire or
building collapse) was covered by a Pocket PC at a far cheaper price
that all the high availability gear we were looking at.

Nothing wrong with HA approach, but for what we wanted to achieve, it
was not the only answer.

cheers
Dean



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 3:23:55 p.m. >>>
Far from an endorsement (from me that is), but at TechEd there's was a
lot of talk from Microsoft and HP about them running E2k3 clusters in
house. 


Steve Evans
SDSU Foundation

-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 & Clustering


http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange2003/section8.asp 

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 9:52:54 a.m. >>>
I'm sure you all remember the Micrsosoft Marketing bulletins that were
issued in the past regarding Exchange 2000 Active/Active clustering and
the potential prblems associated with fragmented memory and the
associated failover issues.

Does anyone on the list have field or lab experience with Windows Server
2003 and Exchange 2003 running Active/Active clustering.  Are the noted
issues inherent in the Exchange 2000 architecture and Active/Active
clustering still a concern with the new technology?

Wayne Peters
Resurrected Exchange Architect

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;

lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz 
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;

lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROT

RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[Dean Cunningham]

Related , but totally unreleated to the thread, just some food for thought :-)

The interesting thing about clustering, is more:

What are you trying to achieve?

Availability, ok, why? what are your business requirements?

Is it:

a) the organisation *really* can't do without email for a day.
b) I can't do without my diary for a day because it causes embarrassment for me not 
knowing what meetings I am at and who my contacts are
c) something else

I worked for a company that needed b).
We looked at SANS and clusters and alike, priced it up and picked ourselves off the 
floor. Scary price but , could still justify it.
We looked at other threats to the availability of exchange that a cluster may not be 
able to eliminate, virii, power or infrastructure failure (hmmm NY blackout springs to 
mind) and look at how to mitigate them.

We then looked at b) again and said "how else can we get this outcome"

We then came up with the idea of an Pocket PC for every person that needed their 
contacts and calendar.
At the end of the day for every risk we identified (apart for fire or building 
collapse) was covered by a Pocket PC at a far cheaper price that all the high 
availability gear we were looking at.

Nothing wrong with HA approach, but for what we wanted to achieve, it was not the only 
answer.

cheers
Dean



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 3:23:55 p.m. >>>
Far from an endorsement (from me that is), but at TechEd there's was a
lot of talk from Microsoft and HP about them running E2k3 clusters in
house. 


Steve Evans
SDSU Foundation

-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 & Clustering


http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange2003/section8.asp 

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 9:52:54 a.m. >>>
I'm sure you all remember the Micrsosoft Marketing bulletins that were
issued in the past regarding Exchange 2000 Active/Active clustering and
the potential prblems associated with fragmented memory and the
associated failover issues.

Does anyone on the list have field or lab experience with Windows Server
2003 and Exchange 2003 running Active/Active clustering.  Are the noted
issues inherent in the Exchange 2000 architecture and Active/Active
clustering still a concern with the new technology?

Wayne Peters
Resurrected Exchange Architect

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; 
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz 
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; 
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[Steve Evans]

Far from an endorsement (from me that is), but at TechEd there's was a
lot of talk from Microsoft and HP about them running E2k3 clusters in
house. 


Steve Evans
SDSU Foundation

-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 & Clustering


http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange2003/section8.asp

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 9:52:54 a.m. >>>
I'm sure you all remember the Micrsosoft Marketing bulletins that were
issued in the past regarding Exchange 2000 Active/Active clustering and
the potential prblems associated with fragmented memory and the
associated failover issues.

Does anyone on the list have field or lab experience with Windows Server
2003 and Exchange 2003 running Active/Active clustering.  Are the noted
issues inherent in the Exchange 2000 architecture and Active/Active
clustering still a concern with the new technology?

Wayne Peters
Resurrected Exchange Architect

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exchange 2003 & Clustering

[Dean Cunningham]

http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange2003/section8.asp

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/10/2003 9:52:54 a.m. >>>
I'm sure you all remember the Micrsosoft Marketing bulletins that were
issued in the past regarding Exchange 2000 Active/Active clustering and
the potential prblems associated with fragmented memory and the associated
failover issues.

Does anyone on the list have field or lab experience with Windows Server
2003 and Exchange 2003 running Active/Active clustering.  Are the noted
issues inherent in the Exchange 2000 architecture and Active/Active
clustering still a concern with the new technology?

Wayne Peters
Resurrected Exchange Architect

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

[Scott Pease]

For the Symantec question, just did this myself.  You'll want to run
Symantec Mail Security 4.0 (build 456) for proper support for Windows
2003 / Exchange 2003.  Make sure you get the SN to get the license file
from your TAM/vendor *before* you upgrade tho, or you'll be manually
updating definitions with intelligent updater files and the like until
you get it (d'oh - Live Update needs the license file to work). 

I wouldn't run SAVMse 3.0 on a Win2k3/Ex2k3 box.  Just confirmed this on
the Platinum support site (checking SAVMse 3.0 build 109)

"Build 109 addresses a memory issue and several scan fixes. Details of
fixes and enhancements included in this and previous builds are in the
inline release notes.

This version is not supported on Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003."


For SMS4.0, there are a couple issues with running it on Win2k3 systems,
most notably that the enhanced IE security settings by default keep you
from accessing the server admin UI on the server itself (add the URL to
the Intranet zone in IE to allow this), and distribution of virus defs
and license files from the admin console requires WebDAV, which may be
disabled during the default install of Win2k3 (just open the server with
IIS Manager, select the Web Service Extensions, select WebDAV and then
click the Allow button).

Scott
Scott Pease 
Senior Specialist, IT - Messaging Architect 
Sapient 
200 West Adams, Suite 2700 
Chicago, IL 60606 
312.458.1863 desk 
312.961.8216 mobile 
http://www.sapient.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Building a new server...
Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003 Server 

Currently have one server running Windows 2000 Server with Exchange 2000
Server.  On the new server I want to migrate things such as AD, Exchange
mailboxes and public folders from the Windows 2000 box to the Windows
2003 box. What is the best way to migrate all of the data since I am not
performing an upgrade to both products on the same server?  Also, does
anybody know if Symantec Antivirus Filtering 3.0 for Exchange will work
with Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003?  I went to Symantec's site looking
for answers and even their new version called Mail Security for Exchange
Server says it is for Exchange 2000.  Please advise.  Thanks.

J

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

[Ed Crowley]

I wasn't making fun of you, sir.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Maybe I should be more specific next time...I wasn't looking for a free ride
just maybe some do's and don'ts before I got started.  That last post with
the links was really all I needed.  Thanks.  Sorry for sounding like a
newbie.  I guess I deserved to be made fun of a little.


-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

and J

 don't forget to read
 http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 

before posting again
:-)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/10/2003 7:20:48 a.m. >>>
My friend, you have asked what I call a "consulting engagement"
question.
You want a migration design for free, no?  The quality of what you get in
this, a discussion forum, is worth maybe only a little more than what you
pay for it.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Building a new server...
Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003 Server 

Currently have one server running Windows 2000 Server with Exchange 2000
Server.  On the new server I want to migrate things such as AD, Exchange
mailboxes and public folders from the Windows 2000 box to the Windows
2003
box. What is the best way to migrate all of the data since I am not
performing an upgrade to both products on the same server?  Also, does
anybody know if Symantec Antivirus Filtering 3.0 for Exchange will work with
Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003?  I went to Symantec's site looking for
answers and even their new version called Mail Security for Exchange Server
says it is for Exchange 2000.  Please advise.  Thanks.

J

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

[Justin Lape]

Maybe I should be more specific next time...I wasn't looking for a free
ride just maybe some do's and don'ts before I got started.  That last
post with the links was really all I needed.  Thanks.  Sorry for
sounding like a newbie.  I guess I deserved to be made fun of a little.


-Original Message-
From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

and J

 don't forget to read 
 http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 

before posting again 
:-)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/10/2003 7:20:48 a.m. >>>
My friend, you have asked what I call a "consulting engagement"
question.
You want a migration design for free, no?  The quality of what you get
in
this, a discussion forum, is worth maybe only a little more than what
you
pay for it.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Building a new server...
Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003 Server 

Currently have one server running Windows 2000 Server with Exchange 2000
Server.  On the new server I want to migrate things such as AD, Exchange
mailboxes and public folders from the Windows 2000 box to the Windows
2003
box. What is the best way to migrate all of the data since I am not
performing an upgrade to both products on the same server?  Also, does
anybody know if Symantec Antivirus Filtering 3.0 for Exchange will work
with
Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003?  I went to Symantec's site looking for
answers and even their new version called Mail Security for Exchange
Server
says it is for Exchange 2000.  Please advise.  Thanks.

J

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang 
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

[Dean Cunningham]

and J

 don't forget to read 
 http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 

before posting again 
:-)

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/10/2003 7:20:48 a.m. >>>
My friend, you have asked what I call a "consulting engagement" question.
You want a migration design for free, no?  The quality of what you get in
this, a discussion forum, is worth maybe only a little more than what you
pay for it.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 Upgrade

Building a new server...
Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003 Server 

Currently have one server running Windows 2000 Server with Exchange 2000
Server.  On the new server I want to migrate things such as AD, Exchange
mailboxes and public folders from the Windows 2000 box to the Windows 2003
box. What is the best way to migrate all of the data since I am not
performing an upgrade to both products on the same server?  Also, does
anybody know if Symantec Antivirus Filtering 3.0 for Exchange will work with
Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003?  I went to Symantec's site looking for
answers and even their new version called Mail Security for Exchange Server
says it is for Exchange 2000.  Please advise.  Thanks.

J

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang 
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english 
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



**
 Northland State of the Environment Report 2002
 now online at  www.nrc.govt.nz
**
NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]